|
|
|
|
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 1:55:32 AM | The reason I wanted to start a thread on this was another person and I mentioned Ron Paul in the Obama thread and I did not want to cause that thread to go off topic so I am starting a new thread here where we can discuss whether people think Ron Paul would be a good president.
I think Ron Paul could make a good president, though I do not know if he even plans on running anytime soon but I hope he does. I am not saying he is Mr. Perfect or free of flaws. In fact I don't agree with him on every single issue and I don't know every tiny little detail about him. However, from what I have read so far, I like his positions better than the positions of McCain(or any other republican running that I am aware of), Hilary, Obama, Kerry, Edwards or Biden(or any other democrat who is running). For one thing, he seems the most sincere out of any candidate for 2008 I have seen in finally solving the illegal immigration mess we are in once and for all. No other candidate that I am aware of even comes close. He is opposed to giving any form of amnesty to illegals. Among other things, he is for removing the job magnet by harshly prosecuting those who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and make cost free checking of immigration status of employees mandatory for all employers(basic pilot program). Also, not allowing those in the country illegally to recieve welfare benefits. These two things will cause most illegals to self-deport. In addition, no other candidate, not Obama, not McCain or any of the others addresses one of the big magnets that draw illegals here. Automatic citizenship for children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. Ron Paul wants to change that so that only children of U.S. citizens will become citizens here and that will be one less incentive for people to illegally enter our country(or break the law by overstaying a legal visit). Read more on this here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
He believes in non-intervention policy in foreign conflicts except where U.S. national security is involed(he did not agree with congressional authorization to let Bush go into Iraq).
Here is what he had to say about Democrat congressman Charlie Rangel's bill to bring back the draft:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul209.html
To find out more about Ron Paul, here are some links.
http://www.ronpaulforcongress.com/html/security.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
Ron Paul is fairly unique in that he does not neatly fit into either political party. He is opposed to some traditional republican views and opposed to some traditional democrat views so I am sure there will be people from both political parties here who will not agree with him on every single issue. You just might however think he may be the best person for the job.
 | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 4:23:34 AM | | Ron Paul is in severe danger of losing his congressional seat. Although his district is heavily Republican, they are sick of him. He ran once for president as a Liberterian. While I think he is fairly honorable, he fits pretty much the nut case variety. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 5:52:07 AM | I want to know exactly how you intend to round up the 12 million illegals already here, if you don't think some sort of amnesty should be given. 12 million!! Don't remember which poster said it, redwood, but they we were right. You are a one-trick pony.
As far as Paul goes I have a couple of problems with him. First, he opposed campaign finance reforms that placed restrictions on how much citizens and businesses could contribute. If we ever want to take back our government from the clutches of big business and the wealthy, campaign finance reform is a must. Second, he is strongly pro-life. Third, the man is 71 years old...73 by election day 2008. I want a President who has better odds of surviving his term. He could never win anyway. He has alienated practically everyone in Congress who could help him raise money or offer support.
 | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 10:11:11 AM | Cavalier,
I do not know why you keep insisting over and over again that I or any candidate I support advocates rounding up every single illegal alien and deporting them. Enough already.
In several of my posts, I already describe what will and should happen. Go back and read my posts again. Basically, once illegals cannot get jobs or welfare here, most will self-deport.
As to what Ron Paul had to say about campaign finance reform, here is a quote from him:
"We need to get money out of government; only then will money not be important in politics. Big government and big campaign money go hand-in-hand."
Read more about what he had to say on this issue here http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst122203.htm
As to him being too old, he's only a year older than McCain and McCain is still running and I don't think I've heard too many people telling McCain to give up because of his age.
Even though he is pro-life(he used to be an obstetrician), from what I read he thinks states should have the right to make abortion illegal or legal as they see fit. | |
|
| |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 10:43:02 AM | "rounding up every single illegal alien and deporting them.......and this is bad WHY????"
Ummmm...because it's not possible and would be a tremendous waste of taxpayer money? Our government has a hard time tracking down deadbeat dads who are citizens.......you trust them to track down 12 million illegals who don't want to be found?
redwood,
"I do not know why you keep insisting over and over again that I or any candidate I support advocates rounding up every single illegal alien and deporting them. Enough already."
Paul is the first candidate i've even seen you support. I agree with him that the McCain reform bill is flawed but am concerned about his statement in the article you suggested that "Congress has no authority under Article I of the Constitution to regulate campaigns at all". So who's gonna fix it then? More criticisms and no solutions does not a good candidate make.
The rest of your posts just bash whomever is being discussed and rehash your same old immigration stance. The House plan you said was better that Obama's Senate bill called for deportation of all illegals. I agree with you about not giving welfare benefits to illegals, but:
You're living in a dreamworld if you think: a)employers will stop hiring illegals...there are laws in place now to fine them but they aren't enforced, b)that they will deport themselves....they're here in the first place because they cannot make a living at home. I've read your posts on the topic ad nauseum and all i see is someone who only cares about results and has put no thought into the practicality or feasability of his own solution.
What personal issue do you have with these people? Did you lose your job picking fruit to one? Did you lose your job cleaning the grease trap at IHOP to one? No one but residents of Texas and California gave a monkey's nut sack about immigration until the "war on terror" began. Now the psuedo-nationalism that Bush has tried to drill into our brains has everyone thinking like xenophobes. The impact of illegals on social programs is minimal and could resolved without cattle call round ups herding across the border or throwing them into already overcrowded prisons. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 11:03:48 AM | Cavalier,
The vast majority of employers will stop hiring illegals when they see other employers getting big fines who disobey the law and repeat offender employers going to jail. Yes there are laws in place now, but they aren't enforced because Bush(and presidents before him)does not want the law enforced more than the tiny amount they have been.
Yes, many illegals are here because they want the much better paying jobs that are here, but when they can no longer find jobs here because government finally gets serious about enforcing lawsagainst hiring illegals, they would most likely prefer to go back to their low pay jobs they had back in their own country rather than stay in the U.S. illegally and have no job and not be able to get on welfare. And thanks, but I have put plenty of thought into my positions.
And it was more than just residents of california and texas who cared about the issue pre-911. What about Arizona and New Mexico? Also, the house of representatives immigration reform caucus was formed well before 9/11 ever happened. The Federation for American Immigration Reform was formed far before 9/11. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
As I said in previous posts, american citizens are losing jobs to illegals in blue collar industries like construction. It isn't just as you would say, "fruit picking jobs and cleaning grease traps at ihop". If you think thats the only jobs they take, you are the one living in a dreamworld. Then there is the fact of them going to hospitals and often getting free medical care and causing hospitals to have to shut down, among other things.
As to me only caring about one issue and nothing else, you don't know me, you obviously have not read every post I've made because I have posted on other issues besides immigration reform.
You ended your post by talking about "cattle call round ups herding across the border or throwing them into already overcrowded prisons." I've yet to advocate that, and Ron Paul doesn't advocate that either. Seems like you keep wanting to make it seem like that is my position(or Ron Paul's position) when its not. With how hard you've come after me on the boards here, almost makes me think you are in the country illegally yourself, which then would certainly explain why you've been so against my positions as I've explained them. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 11:32:02 AM | Please cite where treating illegals has caused hospitals to shut down. I used those jobs as examples, not as the only jobs affected. Perhaps I should write a little more simply so you'll understand. I'm sorry if I don't see this as monumental an issue as you. The impact is minimal where I live.
In regards to immigration prior to 9/11, you cannot seriously believe, despite your assertions, that this was an issue that captured the publics attention prior to 9/11. It just isn't so. Perhaps in the border states we mentioned but nowhere else.
If I've "come after" you, it's because your posts(admittedly I've only read the ones in the topics i'm interested in)have a common theme. I'm sure you do have other issues which interest you, but I have seen no evidence of it. And it's my personal belief that while immigration reform does need to be addressed, it is way down the list in terms of priority. It will have little bearing on how I choose whom I will vote for.
Maybe it's not your intention, but your posts lean towards xenophobia and insinuate that America's future hinges on getting the aliens out of the US. That is simply not the case and I feel compelled to point that out.
And yes....you guessed it...i'm an illegal....just got over the border a couple days ago. Sure my English is perfect because it's part of our plan to take over Kentucky and turn it into one giant Mexican restaurant.
If the bottom line on all this is enforcement(and it is....doesn't matter if it's your plan or Obama's...if it's not enforced it's useless), what exactly would Ron Paul do to enforce them that noone else seems to be able to? And don't just repeat the stuff about stiffer fines and jail time. Just putting that on the books won't make it happen. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 4:01:05 PM | Here are some articles that talk about the costs to hospitals due to illegal immigration and about some of them having to shut down because of it.
http://www.alipac.us/article158.html
http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=21492
http://www.newswithviews.com/Cosman/madeleine.htm
I never said this was a major issue pre-911. However, it was one of many issues pre 911. Just because you were unaware of it does not mean no one else cared.
Its fine if you don't care about illegal immigration and all its consequences. That's your right.
You calling me xenophobic makes no sense. In previous posts I've said I am pro-legal immigration. Xenophobes are against all immigration. Nice try.
And I never said America's future hinges on getting aliens out of the U.S. However, it would be nice if the job and welfare magents that cause illegals to come here in the first place were removed in the ways I previously described (without the mass deportations of 12 million aliens you so loudly and repeatedly talk about), so most of them would go back on their own and immigration could be handled in a sane and orderly way instead of the chaos we have now.
Lets not turn this thread into personal attacks on me and my own positions, lets keep this thread on topic. Its about Ron Paul for president, not about me running for president. I don't think you want to make the forum moderators here angry by causing threads to derail. I know I don't.
I can't give out Ron Paul's entire precise plan on what he would do with immigration reform because I have not seen all the details yet and I can't read his mind. Just as you could not lay out exactly all the details of what Obama would do on everything related to immigration if he were elected. With either candidate, all we can go on is what they have said so far which gives you a basic idea of what they would do, but does not tell the entire story.
The reason enforcement is not working now, is because Bush does not want enforcement against illegals, neither did Clinton(though he enforced the laws a little more than the others) or Bush Sr. Its not as if these past presdents wanted enforcement because they didn't. If they really did, they have tried harder to make it happen. None of them made a strong effort. If a President got in there who really wanted the laws enforced, he could make it happen. All it takes is the sincere will to make it happen, and none of the presidents I listed had the sincere will to make it happen so that is how Ron Paul differs from those other presidents and could get the job done. He would need increased funding for ICE to be as effective as he'd want to be but the senate could refuse to provide more funding for enforcement, or even cut back on enforcement if the president's veto couldn't stop it. Now and in the past, the government has had employees working for ICE and INS who could ahve been used to enforce laws on the books, but most of the time, they were not being utilized to full potential over the years to go after employers who broke the law and hired illegals because the president didn't want them doing that(they've only made token efforts over the years). I believe big businesses who are big campaign contributors also influenced them to not enforce the laws so they could get cheap illegal alien labor. On top of that, it doesn't help that newspapers like the wall street journal have been calling for open borders for years and basically towing the libertarian party line of unrestricted and unlimited immigration. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 10/26/2006 10:42:54 PM | | As a general rule I don't vote because as a general rule there's no one worth voting for. However, if Ron Paul somehow managed to get the party nomination I'd vote for him. I agree with him on most issues and he's the only honest politician i know of. | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 11 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/17/2007 12:43:45 PM | On January 11, 2007, incorporation papers were filed in Texas for a Ron Paul 2008 presidential exploratory committee.
Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, is the only conservative in congress and the only person in congress that supports the Constitution of the United States. Many Republicans talk like conservatives but, it you watch how they vote, clearly they are not.
There are conservative voters in Ron Paul's district. Ron Paul was convincingly re-elected in 2000 and 2002. He was elected unopposed in 2004 to his ninth term in the Congress as no Democrat was even willing to run against him. In 2006, Ron Paul defeated Democrat challenger Shane Sklar by 94,375 to 62,421, or 60 percent to 40 percent with all precincts reporting.
Nevertheless, I sometimes wonder if there are more than a very few conservatives voters in the United States. Most people believe in big government and are opposed to freedom and personal responsibility. To them, as you can see from the post of one person on this thread, anyone that believes in liberty, personal responsibility, and supports the Constitution of the United States is a "nut case."
Is there any hope for a conservative to be elected president?
| |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/17/2007 1:06:15 PM | "Most people believe in big government and are opposed to freedom and personal responsibility."
"To them, as you can see from the post of one person on this thread, anyone that believes in liberty, personal responsibility, and supports the Constitution of the United States is a "nut case.""
What a load of crap! So if anyone's views differ from yours then they are opposed to freedom? Come on.....you must be smarter than that. Maybe you're just brainwashed. So typical of conservatives(especially neo-cons) to question someone's loyalty to the US because of a differing opinion. You see it every day. Some TV right-wing political hack calling Democrats and others who oppose the war in Iraq as "terrorist sympathizers".
"Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, is the only conservative in congress and the only person in congress that supports the Constitution of the United States."
Again...another load of crap. Have any documentation to support such a ridiculous claim?
I will agree to the extent that Bush and his neo-con pals bear little resemblance to traditional, fiscally conservative Republicans....but the entire rest of your post is nonsense.
"Is there any hope for a conservative to be elected president?"
Absolutely none......and you can thank GWB for that. | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 13 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/17/2007 1:16:02 PM | "Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas, is the only conservative in congress and the only person in congress that supports the Constitution of the United States."
Again...another load of crap. Have any documentation to support such a ridiculous claim?
Ron Paul's voting record supports my statement 100 percent. Ron Paul reads proposed bills and votes against them if not constitutional. Sometimes he is the only Representative voting against a bill and earning him the Honorable title of "Dr. No." No other member congress cares about the Constitution of the United States as they clearly vote for Federal powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution. See the 9th and 10th Amendments. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/17/2007 1:38:33 PM | This is for another thread but the Constitution is a living document. It is foolish and short-sighted to interpret it literally. As brilliant as the Founders were, it is unlikely they could have forseen the need to consider topics like the internet, personal privacy, abortion, election reform, civil rights legislation, etc........
Dr. No is used in a derrogatory manner by his own Republican collegues.
I know what the 9th and 10th ammendment are, junior. Are you familiar with the "necessary and proper" clause in Article 1? It is this clause(often used in conjuction w/ the Commerce clause) which allows Congress to enact those laws that you and Paul reject.
Just voting NO on every bill presented to him doesn't make him a good candidate. Don't get me wrong. there are some positions I agree with Paul on. But I don't want a 70 something year old man who's primary goal is the effective deconstruction of the Federal government winning the Presidency. We have 37 more states and 100 times the population we had when the Constitution was written. Do you really believe a literal interpretation is practical in today's high-tech, global village, kind of world? Do you really trust all the states to govern in all these areas effectively? | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/18/2007 5:34:57 PM | | Ron Paul, in my opinion would be an excellent President, but it is a pipe dream, because his chances of winning enough primaries to secure his nomination are almost astronomical. If in this pipe dream he did win the nomination of his party, by maybe devine intervention, that is the only way that I would vote Republican in the next election. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 8:20:00 AM |
This is for another thread but the Constitution is a living document.
Anyone who acually believes this and espouses this notion are so wrong it is beyond belief. It is as if they have no values or core ideals that they could actually to be termed valueless. Now if they meant that the constitution is a living document because it can be ammended and has a process for change they would be correct. But that is not what they mean. Instead they mean that the constitution has a constantly changing meaning to be interpreted with the changes of meanings of words and mores of the time. Those that twist this meaning of a living document generally do so to seek justification for its violation.
Do you really believe a literal interpretation is practical in today's high-tech, global village, kind of world? Do you really trust all the states to govern in all these areas effectively?
Of course. "This constitution, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2. For further refutation I refer to http://www.garymcleod.org/con-quot.htm for the rebuttal.
"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted." "Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177.
"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution, are null and void." Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5, U.S. (Cranch) 137, 174,176
"Where the meaning of the constitution is clear and unambiguous, there can be no resort to construction to attribute to the founders a purpose of intent not manifest in its letter." Norris v. Baltimore, 172, Md. 667; 192 A 531.0.
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
"If the legislature clearly misinterprets a constitutional provision, the frequent repetition of the wrong will not create a right." Amos v. Mosley, 74 Fla. 555; 77 So. 619.
"It is the peculiar value of a written constitution that it places in unchanging form limitations upon the legislation and thus gives a permanence and stability to popular government which otherwise would be lacking." Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412.
"The courts cannot rightly prefer, of the possible meanings of the words of the constitution, that which will defeat rather than effectuate the constitutional purpose." United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299.
"Constitutions are not primarily designed to protect majorities, who are usually able to protect themselves, but rather to preserve and protect the rights of individuals and minorities against arbitrary action of those in authority." Houston County v. Martin, 232 A 1 511; 169 So. 13.
"In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson.
"Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds." Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850).
"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go. It emphasizes that in this country man walks with dignity and without fear, that he need not grovel before an all powerful government." Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2003/06/24/the_battle_for_the_constitution
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/dieteman5.html
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/metro/mar01/scalia14031301a.asp | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 8:34:55 AM |
Please cite where treating illegals has caused hospitals to shut down.
From http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43275
"84 California hospitals are closing their doors as a direct result of the rising number of illegal aliens and their non-reimbursed tax on the system."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150750,00.html
"The hospitals are closing because of the totality of the uninsured," said Dr. Thomas Garthwaite, director of the Los Angeles County Health Department
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/10/heallth.illegal.ap/
http://www.alipac.us/article158.html
"In Arizona, along the Mexican border, dozens of hospitals have cut back on services to cover the money they lose by providing free care to illegal immigrants. Administrators from one facility, the Southeast Arizona Medical Center, told local and national publications that the costs of caring for aliens drove them out of business." | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 10:28:35 AM | "Anyone who acually believes this and espouses this notion are so wrong it is beyond belief. It is as if they have no values or core ideals that they could actually to be termed valueless."
Nice backhanded insult...very classy.
"The Constitution is short; it cannot and does not attempt to cover every eventuality. Even when it seems it is clear, there can be conflicting rights, conflicting spheres of power. When disputes arise, it comes time for people, and most importantly judges of the Judicial Branch, to interpret the Constitution. The concept of constitutional interpretation is foreign in some countries, where the constitution makes a reasonable effort to cover every eventuality. These constitutions are generally rigid and little changing, adapting slowly to advances in political views, popular opinion, technology, and changes in government. The U.S. Constitution, however, has been termed a Living Constitution, in part because it grows and adapts to internal and external pressures, changing from one era and generation to the next."
Those who most oppose the Originalist approach often consider themselves to be modernists, or instrumentalists. A modernist approach to Constitutional interpretation looks at the Constitution as if it were ratified today. What meaning would it have today, if written today. How does modern life affect the words of the Constitution? The main argument against originalism is that the Constitution becomes stale and irrelevant to modern life if only viewed through 18th century eyes. Additionally, we have more than 200 years of history and legal precedent to look back on, and that we are modern individuals, with as much difficulty in reasonably thinking like 18th century men as those 18th century men would have had trouble thinking like us.
Modernists also contend that the Constitution is deliberately vague in many areas, expressly to permit modern interpretations to override older ones as the Constitution ages. It is this interpretation that best embodies the Living Constitution concept: the Constitution is flexible and dynamic, changing slowly over time as the morals and beliefs of the population shift. Modernists do not reject originalism - they recognize that there is value in a historical perspective; but the contemporary needs of society outweigh an adherence to a potentially dangerously outdated angle of attack.
-from usconstitution.net
"Those that twist this meaning of a living document generally do so to seek justification for its violation."
In your opinion, sir....doesn't make it fact.
And in regards to trusting the states with all that power? Why in your state alone the following laws are on the books:
-When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone.
-It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
-Up to a felony charge can be levied for promoting the use of, or owning more than six dildos.
-It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
-It is illegal to milk another person's cow.
-A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24 hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the crime to be committed.
-Homosexual behavior is a misdemeanor offense.
-The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home
I stand by my assertion that it is foolish and shortsighted not to take into account the passing of over two hundred years, the advances in technology, and the complex politics of today's world when interpreting the Constitution. I have no agenda and no desire to see any changes in it at this time(short of a ammendment regarding campaign finance but that won't happen).
Would you seek medical treatment from a text written 200 years ago?
The "separate but equal" provision of the 14th ammendment was shot down by Brown v. Board of Education-I suppose as a strict interpretationist you would prefer we returned to the Jim Crow days? The Framers were wise, but not perfect(easiest example was that the Constitution originally did not prohibit Slavery)....I assume you'd be OK with that too since we're being strict here.
"Our Bill of Rights curbs all three branches of government. It subjects all departments of government to a rule of law and sets boundaries beyond which no official may go."
Justice William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court.
Unless you're GWB right? | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 10:44:45 AM | The ability of the president depends in large part on his ability to work with congress. It is not enough that he has the right ideals but that he also has the ability to lead. Ron Paul or Dr. No has never shown any ability at anytime to get anyone to go along with anything he wanted to do or to get any law enacted.
You only have to look at our current President to see how that works. When he had a majority in congress, he managed to get all he wanted done. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, he is backing down from almost every thing but the war in Iraq and I even think that will change soon. Admitedly I don't like Ron Paul, but then nobody in congress does either. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 7:42:23 PM | I would vote for Ron Paul in a second. Look at his stances.
Paul has his crap together. This is why I'm voting for him this election.
Congressman Paul is a staunch advocate of asset based currencies and he shares these views regularly with his constituents in Washington D.C. The Congressman is on record as stating that he believes in the following “FREEDOM PRINCIPALS”:
- Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
- Property should be owned by people, not government.
- All voluntary associations should be permissible – economic and social.
- The government’s monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
- Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
- The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government’s
www.ronpaul.org | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 8:51:50 PM | We already HAVE a conservative jerk for a president. No more!! I would not vote for Ron Paul. 'nuff said!!
As for illegals, there are ways to deal with them, but voting for a single issue nutcase isn't going to solve the problem! I for one am sick to death of single issue zealots, especially the anti abortion fanatics. Worse are the anti gay marriage kooks who have been wasting the Massachusetts Legislature's time with that issue, when they should have adjourned and moved on to more important matters of state. And those who vote only on the gun issue are just as wacky.
Looking at the BIG PICTURE is a must when voting. Look at ALL the issues, not just one, please! That's how so many screwballs have gotten into office!! | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/19/2007 9:25:10 PM | | If anyone who is familiar with politics, more than just the surface crap that's being spoon-fed to us, believes that GWB and Ron Paul are anything alike, they aren‘t paying attention. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/20/2007 4:27:43 AM | I agree with the above poster, George Bush and Ron Paul are miles apart on many issues. Its almost like comparing apples and oranges. They disagree on more than they agree on. Anyone who thinks Paul would be too much like Bush needs to do some more research.
There are too many people who vote democrat out there who would never consider voting for a republican, no matter how different he is from other republicans. Just as there are too many republicans who would never vote for a democrat no matter how different they were than the average run of the mill democrat. People need to get over blind party loyalty.
There are democrats I'd vote for in an upcoming election(Mike McIntyre, Ike Skelton, Stephanie Herseth(she could be a great pick for 2012 or 2016), a great first woman president if Hilary does not win in 2008 or 2012 or 2016), Gene Taylor, John Tanner, Lincoln Davis as well as some republicans like Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter(currently the only two candidates currently running who would be serious about solving the issue of illegal immigration, and considering we have not had a president for decades who's made a serious attempt to solve it, it's time to finally get someone in there who can solve it). I'd prefer to vote for one of the aforementioned democrats, but unfortunately none of them are currently running.
For all the democrats and republicans I mentioned that I'd vote for, I don't agree with any of them on everything, and the list of things I disagree with them on is not short. Since I am somewhere stuck in the middle between conservative and liberal, I doubt there will ever be a candidate that I agree with everything on. It usually comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils, or whomever comes closest to my own beliefs.
For me, it depends on the individual, not on the party affiliation when I cast my vote. Unfortunately, I know people on both sides of the aisle who will only vote for one party and never even consider the other no matter who is running, and that is a shame. | |
|
Smjle
|
Joined: 9/19/2006
Msg: 24 | |
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/20/2007 12:24:01 PM |
...the Constitution is a living document.
That is what all people that don't believe in the Constitution of the United States of America say. If that is true, the constitution is meaningless. And, like in another part of your post, when you don't have a valid argument, you resort to name calling. Obviously your mind is made up; the facts don't matter so after this post, I am not wasting any more time with you.
The truth is: It is a fundamental principle that all acts of officials not derived from the delegated powers of the constitution are null and void. "All laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (Marbury vs. Madison). If I though logic and reason was effective with you I would suggest you read about that case.
The way to change the constitution is by amendments. If trully necessary; if the vast majority agreed, it could be done in one day. | |
|
| Congressman Ron Paul for President
Posted: 1/20/2007 8:18:08 PM | I've done more than my share of cross dressing
Now that I've gotten your attention, I tend to vote Democratic. But I do vote Republican on occasion, especially when the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat--which does happen on occasion. I recall voting for a very liberal Republican attorney general candidate over a more conservative Democrat some years ago and being disappointed that the conservative won. I regularly vote to return our fine District Attorney Elizabeth Scheibel, a Republican, back to keep doing the fine work she does. Her work has little to do with party politics--she is a strong advocate for victims' rights and does excellent work as a DA. I remember voting for Gov. William Weld, an excellent governor. (Yeah, he likes the Grateful Dead too !!). I vote for the liberal candidate, regardless of party affiliation. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 35
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 |
|
Home
login 
